Note how much Kant plays a role in science. Sciience is much more the physicallism sense information. And not creationism is not science

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

I'm not certain why I listened to this entire video, but I can say that the implications that there is more to quantum mechanics than probability has the leaders of the Copenhagen interpretation rolling in their graves. I appreciate that.

The point in the vid where they state that the populace has still not moved on from the Newtonian view that anything can be know once the variables are known, such as where a planet will be in position 2 years from today is very valid.

As a layman of quantum mechanics, i have tried to explain the how particles really behave to friends, but most are apathetic to wanting to understand it. It is partly due to the fact it is not understandable from a human experience except from a pure math standpoint. The other part is that science has been vilified as a geeks pursuit.

I'm not certain, however, that should folks come to better appreciate the new model (which is not new as it is around a century year old) it will cause religious dilemma such as doubt around creationism.

Even when man kind is able to create life from a list of ingredients, it will not cause a religious dilemma. Religion can justify anything.

Once scientists uncover more about anti-matter to the public, New Age Christians will just begin to further justify the resurrection and begin to claim that perhaps Jesus was actually just under the influence of a particle accelerator and was actually composed of the anti-matter of the heavens.

But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - WattsThe moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts

At 8/3/2012 5:21:45 PM, slo1 wrote:I'm not certain why I listened to this entire video,

The Fool: why would you say this? I think nobody could rationally claim science without appealing to faith who doesnt' even understand how and why it works. They just have faith in authority.

but I can say that the implications that there is more to quantum mechanics than probability has the leaders of the Copenhagen interpretation rolling in their graves. I appreciate that.

The point in the vid where they state that the populace has still not moved on from the Newtonian view that anything can be know once the variables are known, such as where a planet will be in position 2 years from today is very valid.

As a layman of quantum mechanics, i have tried to explain the how particles really behave to friends, but most are apathetic to wanting to understand it. It is partly due to the fact it is not understandable from a human experience except from a pure math standpoint. The other part is that science has been vilified as a geeks pursuit.

I'm not certain, however, that should folks come to better appreciate the new model (which is not new as it is around a century year old) it will cause religious dilemma such as doubt around creationism.

Even when man kind is able to create life from a list of ingredients, it will not cause a religious dilemma. Religion can justify anything.

The Fool: Yeah that book will just keep reinventing itself with new interpretations.I will post the rest soon but I want have intellectuail discussions on certain aspect of it. Even many scientist don't know why and how the method works. Because they tend to over specialize only in a certain dicapline of science and they take the method they have been tought like a bible! They just follow that method and everything mystically takes its place. Just like a theist, but with a more rational bible. But with similar faith.

But Natural science has in its foundation a bold assertion leap that observation is direct and of the only REAL or Existence.One of the mistakes they make is that they think there physical sense perception is a DIRECT observation of reallity. They don't account for the fact that all such obsrvations are made POST-PROCESSING sense data. It is Kant that demonstrated the importants of this in science.

This may not effect a physical theory for a long time, But we should definetly expect this bold assumption to create problems down the line. We should never be sayng that something IS random ever, and that is a problem for any scientifc theory, we are still making progress in another sense. But this random MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR. TO say something is Random is throw your hand up in the air and yet sh!t happens. !!! That is not scientific explanation, It's a problem. Scientist don't even claim to understand it. It is irrational link the micro to the macro, if one is indetermind and the other is determined. NOT MATTER WHAT THE OBSERVATION. Mind you 90% of physics is not even observation but rather of mathmatical inquiry, and theory.

The problem here is something in the Quantum theory. Netwons theory was succeded by Quantum mechics for not being able to explain certion phenomina. And so Quantum physics, should be starting to look for a better theory. Not to stick unexplainable phenomena. But because is works for so much sciencist see it as some abolute truth, when really its time to let it go and Move on. It is time to start looking at the assumptions in quantum mechanics and or possible succeding theories. To see where we Zigged when Zagging was more appropriate. Regless of its slow progress We may find one that can explain why we get the appearence of random. This evolution in theory may create a much faster and efficience progress then we every imagined. I think they appealing to tradition here.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

The problem here is something in the Quantum theory. Netwons theory was succeded by Quantum mechics for not being able to explain certion phenomina. And so Quantum physics, should be starting to look for a better theory. Not to stick unexplainable phenomena. But because is works for so much sciencist see it as some abolute truth, when really its time to let it go and Move on. It is time to start looking at the assumptions in quantum mechanics and or possible succeding theories. To see where we Zigged when Zagging was more appropriate. Regless of its slow progress We may find one that can explain why we get the appearence of random. This evolution in theory may create a much faster and efficience progress then we every imagined. I think they appealing to tradition here.

That is what Einstein thought. There has to be an explanation on why particles behave so counter intuitive. I noticed that more physicists are open to start question why what is going on, but there is still a negative perception when scientists start thinking outside the box.

I don't know that there ever will be a reason for the probabilities in quantum mechanics. There is not a day that I don't think, what the h does it all mean. It was just experimentally proven that virtual photons poof in and out of existence in a vacuum as it was predicted via mathematical models four decades ago. The only reason that does not happen with the chair you or I are sitting on is probability. When one gets a large collection of particles the odds they poof at the same time is astronomically high.

Lol - Good thing I'm not good enough in math to become a physicist. I don't think they would appreciate my usage of "poof" terminology.

I have not examined it, but I know that there is much thought on the role of consciousness as a trigger to "observe" matter. It seems to me that there is broad implications that consciousness is more than physical brain function if one goes in that direction, but it is hard to envision that especially as science discovers personality and many other functions we originally believed was to be human is really just physical functioning of the brain.